This study examined the effects of timing and level of
legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting
prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to
answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision
on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have
time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying
types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis,
higher or lower number of con... (more info)

This study examined the effects of timing and level of
legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting
prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to
answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision
on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have
time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying
types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis,
higher or lower number of contacts per month)? Data were obtained by
conducting retrospective interviews with four separate groups of
subjects from four distinct research projects previously conducted in
Southern California (McGlothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977, Anglin,
McGlothlin, and Speckart, 1981, Anglin, McGlothlin, Speckart, and Ryan,
1982, and McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). The first group were male
patients in the California Civil Addict Program, admitted in
1962-1964, who were interviewed for this survey in 1974-1975. The
second group was a sample of addicts drawn from male first admissions
between the years 1971-1973 from Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and
Orange County methadone maintenance programs. These respondents were
interviewed during the years 1978-1979, an average of 6.6 years after
admission. The third group consisted of male and female methadone
maintenance patients selected from rosters of clients active on June
30, 1976, at clinics in Bakersfield and Tulare, California. These
subjects were interviewed during 1978 and 1979, an average of 3.5
years after admission. The fourth group of subjects consisted of males
and females who were active on September 30, 1978, at San Diego,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange County clinics and were
interviewed during the years 1980-1981, an average of six years after
their admission. Subjects included Anglo-American and Mexican-American
males and females. The samples were generally representative of
California methadone maintenance patients except for the second
sample, which had been selected to study the impact of civil
commitment parole status on the behavior of patients receiving
methadone and was not necessarily representative of the overall
population of admitted patients receiving methodone. Before the
interview, a schematic time line on each offender was prepared, which
included all known arrests and intervals of incarceration, legal
supervision, and methadone treatment, based on criminal justice system
and treatment program records. In discussion with the subject, the
interviewer established the date of the first narcotics use on the time
line, then proceeded chronologically through the time line, marking a
change in narcotics use from less-than-daily use to daily use (or vice
versa), or a change in the respondent's legal or treatment status, as
a time interval. The interviewer repeated this process for successive
intervals up through the date of the interview. Parts 1-8 consist of the
interview data, with Forms 2 and 3 corresponding to the various
intervals. There can be multiple intervals for each individual.
Variables cover drug use, employment, criminal behavior, legal
status, conditions of parole or probation, and drug treatment
enrollment. Form 1 data contain background information on offenders,
such as family and substance abuse history, and Form 4 data include
other personal information as well as self-reported arrest and
treatment histories. Parts 9 and 10, Master Data, were created from
selected variables from the interview data. Parts 11 and 12,
Arrest Data, were collected from official criminal justice records and
describe each offender's arrests, such as month and year of arrest, charge,
disposition, and arrest category. The datasets are split between the Southern
California (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, Bakersfield,
Tulare, and Riverside) and San Diego clinic locations.

Access Notes

One or more data files in this study are set up in a non-standard format, such as card image format. Users
may need help converting these files before they can be used for analysis.

(1) Questions about these data can be addressed to
M. Douglas Anglin, UCLA Drug Abuse Research Group, Neuropsychiatric
Institute. (2) The codebook and data collection instrument are provided as a
Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by
Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software,
such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the
Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Sample:
Complete descriptions of the specific composition of the
sample groups of subjects are provided in the following publication:
Anglin, M. Douglas, and William H. McGlothlin, "Outcome of Narcotic
Addict Treatment in California." In Frank M. Tims and Jacqueline
P. Ludford (eds.), DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT EVALUATION: STRATEGIES,
PROGRESS, AND PROSPECTS. Research Monograph 51. Rockville, MD:
National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1984, pp. 106-128.

Data Source:

personal interviews

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:1998-08-03

Version History:

2006-03-30 File CB9974.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.